To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

This is a perfect example of how sources quote other sources incompetently and come up with factoids that are complete lies which are then copied into fark headlines for credulous people to recycle the misinformation.

When you follow the link in the article to their source, it says that male high school athletes have more concussions:

"Boys suffer the largest number of concussions overall because they play football. But when football is excluded, girls suffer more concussions, especially in soccer and basketball."

Benevolent Misanthrope:To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

itcamefromschenectady:Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

itcamefromschenectady:This is a perfect example of how sources quote other sources incompetently and come up with factoids that are complete lies which are then copied into fark headlines for credulous people to recycle the misinformation.

When you follow the link in the article to their source, it says that male high school athletes have more concussions:

"Boys suffer the largest number of concussions overall because they play football. But when football is excluded, girls suffer more concussions, especially in soccer and basketball."

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=75789

Bonus points for a rare correct usage of the term 'factoid' as Norman Mailer intended it to be used.

Benevolent Misanthrope:itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

itcamefromschenectady:Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

No, I'm not, and it doesn't say that anyway.

Wow. Are you a Republican or something? I've rarely seen anyone who could contradict something in the exact same post so brazenly and expect no one to notice.

Benevolent Misanthrope:itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

No, I'm not, and it doesn't say that anyway.

Wow. Are you a Republican or something? I've rarely seen anyone who could contradict something in the exact same post so brazenly and expect no one to notice.

You said "no one" is looking for CTE in women. That's not in the article. The article said there is "little evidence" people are looking - but it also said "the athletes who have been diagnosed with the condition are numbered. They're predominantly male." Predominantly male means there are some who are female. So you are contradicting the article, the article is contradicting itself, the article is making stuff up, you're making stuff up that doesn't agree with the article, and you're telling me I'm contradicting myself.

itcamefromschenectady:Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

No, I'm not, and it doesn't say that anyway.

Wow. Are you a Republican or something? I've rarely seen anyone who could contradict something in the exact same post so brazenly and expect no one to notice.

You said "no one" is looking for CTE in women. That's not in the article. The article said there is "little evidence" people are looking - but it also said "the athletes who have been diagnosed with the condition are numbered. They're predominantly male." Predominantly male means there are some who are female. So you are contradicting the article, the article is contradicting itself, the article is making stuff up, you're making stuff up that doesn't agree with the article, and you're telling me I'm contradicting myself.

Benevolent Misanthrope:itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: itcamefromschenectady: Benevolent Misanthrope: To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

You're reading an article that says male athletes have fewer concussions, linking to a source that says male athletes have more concussions. And that's evidence nobody cares about women's health?

You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

No, I'm not, and it doesn't say that anyway.

Wow. Are you a Republican or something? I've rarely seen anyone who could contradict something in the exact same post so brazenly and expect no one to notice.

You said "no one" is looking for CTE in women. That's not in the article. The article said there is "little evidence" people are looking - but it also said "the athletes who have been diagnosed with the condition are numbered. They're predominantly male." Predominantly male means there are some who are female. So you are contradicting the article, the article is contradicting itself, the article is making stuff up, you're making stuff up that doesn't agree with the article, and you're telling me I'm contradicting myself.

Ah. Lawyer-specific language. I get it! You're trolling!

OK, you got one. Carry on.

I consider lawyerly specific language to be a good thing, although I am not a lawyer. I also think you and the article writer are trolls, and I should probably relax and move on.

Benevolent Misanthrope:To date, only 33 dead ex-NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE, along with a small handful from other sports. But according to [this] list, not a single one of those diagnosed with CTE was a female athlete, and there's little evidence that anybody's looking for them.

Well, duh. When it comes to medical research, men are always treated as more important, unless there's a huge campaign for years, like with breast cancer.

Female cancers get the largest single chunk of research funding for cancer. Breast cancer alone gets 21%, and when you add ovarian (4%), uterine (1%), vaginal (0%) and cervical cancers (3%), you get nearly a 1/3rd of all research dollars spent on female-specific cancers.

Testicular and penile cancers both are at the 0% level (meaning probably below 0.5%), and prostate cancer gets 10%. So the women get almost 3 times the amount of cancer funding than men, at least according to the National Cancer Institute.

The single largest type of cancer to get funding is breast cancer, which gets more than twice the amount of funding of any other single category.

Benevolent Misanthrope:You're commenting on a statement from that same article saying that no one is looking for signs of CTE in female athletes, but only in male athletes, and taking it as a sign that medical research is as interested in women's health as men's?

You're not actually claiming medical research is more interested in men's health than women, are you? Because that'd be as stupid as the headline here is

During a player's career, the brain suffers blow after blow after blow, and retired players later display many symptoms of brain damage: dementia; loss of motor skills; depression; homicidal and suicidal behavior, and so on.

Son of Thunder:During a player's career, the brain suffers blow after blow after blow, and retired players later display many symptoms of brain damage: dementia; loss of motor skills; depression; homicidal and suicidal behavior, and so on.

itcamefromschenectady:This is a perfect example of how sources quote other sources incompetently and come up with factoids that are complete lies which are then copied into fark headlines for credulous people to recycle the misinformation.

When you follow the link in the article to their source, it says that male high school athletes have more concussions:

"Boys suffer the largest number of concussions overall because they play football. But when football is excluded, girls suffer more concussions, especially in soccer and basketball."

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=75789

If your goal is to compare the risk of concussion between male and female athletes it makes sense to exclude sports which are predominantly single-sex.

Both men and women commonly play soccer and basketball, and the rules are similar in the men's and women's games, so the data from those sports would make more sense than throwing football and field hockey into the mix.

From another article I was reading before, the most dangerous sport of them all in terms of risk of death or serious injury (not just concussions) is women's gymnastics.

dittybopper:Female cancers get the largest single chunk of research funding for cancer. Breast cancer alone gets 21%, and when you add ovarian (4%), uterine (1%), vaginal (0%) and cervical cancers (3%), you get nearly a 1/3rd of all research dollars spent on female-specific cancers.

Testicular and penile cancers both are at the 0% level (meaning probably below 0.5%), and prostate cancer gets 10%. So the women get almost 3 times the amount of cancer funding than men, at least according to the National Cancer Institute.

The single largest type of cancer to get funding is breast cancer, which gets more than twice the amount of funding of any other single category.

Theaetetus:dittybopper: Female cancers get the largest single chunk of research funding for cancer. Breast cancer alone gets 21%, and when you add ovarian (4%), uterine (1%), vaginal (0%) and cervical cancers (3%), you get nearly a 1/3rd of all research dollars spent on female-specific cancers.

Testicular and penile cancers both are at the 0% level (meaning probably below 0.5%), and prostate cancer gets 10%. So the women get almost 3 times the amount of cancer funding than men, at least according to the National Cancer Institute.

The single largest type of cancer to get funding is breast cancer, which gets more than twice the amount of funding of any other single category.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 451x640]

Gosh, I wonder why...[www.cancerresearchuk.org image 640x532]

Misleading.

Breast cancer is super easy to test for. Of course you're going to see more cases detected than say... colon cancer. Also, with the colon, they like to burn off polyps all the time.

Theaetetus:dittybopper: Female cancers get the largest single chunk of research funding for cancer. Breast cancer alone gets 21%, and when you add ovarian (4%), uterine (1%), vaginal (0%) and cervical cancers (3%), you get nearly a 1/3rd of all research dollars spent on female-specific cancers.

Testicular and penile cancers both are at the 0% level (meaning probably below 0.5%), and prostate cancer gets 10%. So the women get almost 3 times the amount of cancer funding than men, at least according to the National Cancer Institute.

The single largest type of cancer to get funding is breast cancer, which gets more than twice the amount of funding of any other single category.

TuteTibiImperes:itcamefromschenectady: This is a perfect example of how sources quote other sources incompetently and come up with factoids that are complete lies which are then copied into fark headlines for credulous people to recycle the misinformation.

When you follow the link in the article to their source, it says that male high school athletes have more concussions:

"Boys suffer the largest number of concussions overall because they play football. But when football is excluded, girls suffer more concussions, especially in soccer and basketball."

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=75789

If your goal is to compare the risk of concussion between male and female athletes it makes sense to exclude sports which are predominantly single-sex.

Both men and women commonly play soccer and basketball, and the rules are similar in the men's and women's games, so the data from those sports would make more sense than throwing football and field hockey into the mix.

From another article I was reading before, the most dangerous sport of them all in terms of risk of death or serious injury (not just concussions) is women's gymnastics.

I hadnt heard about gymnastics being super dangerous but I could see how.

Boxing as actually more dangerous in the gloves era than it was in bare knuckles era because the glove actually protects the puncher's hand and wrists more than the punched's head allowing harder punches to be thrown.

Oldiron_79:Boxing as actually more dangerous in the gloves era than it was in bare knuckles era because the glove actually protects the puncher's hand and wrists more than the punched's head allowing harder punches to be thrown.

Not to mention adding 16oz to the weight of the object doing the striking...

lennavan:Theaetetus: dittybopper: Female cancers get the largest single chunk of research funding for cancer. Breast cancer alone gets 21%, and when you add ovarian (4%), uterine (1%), vaginal (0%) and cervical cancers (3%), you get nearly a 1/3rd of all research dollars spent on female-specific cancers.

Testicular and penile cancers both are at the 0% level (meaning probably below 0.5%), and prostate cancer gets 10%. So the women get almost 3 times the amount of cancer funding than men, at least according to the National Cancer Institute.

The single largest type of cancer to get funding is breast cancer, which gets more than twice the amount of funding of any other single category.

Oldiron_79:Boxing as actually more dangerous in the gloves era than it was in bare knuckles era because the glove actually protects the puncher's hand and wrists more than the punched's head allowing harder punches to be thrown.

IlGreven:Oldiron_79: Boxing as actually more dangerous in the gloves era than it was in bare knuckles era because the glove actually protects the puncher's hand and wrists more than the punched's head allowing harder punches to be thrown.

...are you also advocating football players not wear helmets?

No, football was much more dangerous in the pre helmet and leather helmet days than it is now.Freaking deaths where common. In 1905 there was 19 head injury deaths in college football.

Obviously there was a focus on football, the whole thing came from looking into issues among retired football players. Guess what, most football players are male especially at a high level.

I suspect there will be NHL players on the list fairly soon. And then you reach the issue where other sports generally don't have significant money for retired players to care too much or concussions are a relatively rare occurance.

It will eventually filter down to all sports. But when looking for people suffering multiple concussions I bet that the trend will always show more men.